A newly surfaced report alleging the temporary removal of a Justice Department record tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation has intensified scrutiny over undisclosed evidence and the handling of sensitive FBI interviews linked to President Donald Trump.
The controversy stems from a document briefly taken offline from a federal Epstein records database before reappearing, raising questions about transparency, discovery disclosures, and whether critical investigative material remains unevenly accessible to the public.
The claim, published on 20 February 2026 by investigative journalist Roger Sollenberger, centres on discovery evidence provided to convicted trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell during her criminal proceedings but allegedly withheld from broader public releases.
Discovery Records And The Disputed DOJ Database Entry
According to Sollenberger's reporting, the disputed document served as an evidence catalogue related to the federal prosecution in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20-Cr-330, in the Southern District of New York. Court filings confirm that prosecutors produced extensive discovery to Maxwell's defence ahead of trial, including interview reports, investigative notes, and materials relating to non-testifying witnesses.
NEW: I caught the DOJ deleting a record showing Ghislaine Maxwell has potential blackmail on Trump. The document reveals that DOJ gave Maxwell's lawyers three FBI interviews with an underage Trump accuser that have not been released to the public.https://t.co/CPx7L9YBGB pic.twitter.com/mlobE7hPPN
— Roger Sollenberger (@SollenbergerRC) February 20, 2026
Federal court records show that prosecutors disclosed more than 20,000 pages of interview notes and related materials during pre-trial discovery in April 2021, reflecting the unusually large evidentiary scope of the case. Those disclosures formed part of routine obligations under federal criminal procedure, allowing the defence to examine statements potentially relevant to witness credibility or exculpatory evidence.
The contested database entry allegedly indicated that four FBI interviews were conducted with a woman identified by the government as an Epstein victim from the early-to-mid-1980s. The report claims that only one of those interviews appeared in the publicly released Epstein files, while all four were produced to Maxwell's legal team as 'non-witness material.'
If accurate, that discrepancy would not, in itself, prove misconduct. Discovery rules often permit defendants access to broader investigative material than what later becomes public. However, transparency advocates argue that once large-scale document releases were authorised under recent Epstein disclosure efforts, disparities between defence access and public access became politically and legally significant.
Maxwell Trial Evidence And Legal Context
Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 on federal sex-trafficking charges for recruiting underage girls for financier Jeffrey Epstein and was sentenced in June 2022 to 20 years' imprisonment. The Department of Justice maintains an official archive of filings and procedural orders from the case, documenting discovery schedules, victim statements, and evidentiary rulings.
Court filings surrounding later disclosure disputes confirm that government discovery encompassed far more material than what jurors ultimately saw. Prosecutors acknowledged that investigative files included interview reports, search warrant applications, electronic forensic evidence, and victim accounts collected over decades.
Grand jury submissions similarly relied heavily on summaries provided by law-enforcement witnesses rather than direct testimony from victims, illustrating how investigative interviews can exist outside publicly aired proceedings.
It's important to note that discovery disclosures frequently exceed trial evidence because prosecutors must provide material that could aid the defence, even when it remains inadmissible or untested in court. The distinction has become central to disputes over the Epstein files, where lawmakers and advocacy groups have pressed for broader public access following the passage of transparency measures that ordered additional releases.
Allegations Of Withheld Interviews And Political Implications
The revived document reportedly demonstrates that Maxwell's attorneys received batches of discovery in April, July, and October 2021 as part of trial preparation. Such staged disclosures are standard in complex federal prosecutions, particularly those involving historical allegations spanning decades.
Sollenberger's report argues that the existence of unreleased FBI interviews could give Maxwell leverage if their contents remain publicly unknown while accessible to her defence team. No court filing reviewed to date establishes that any such interviews contain incriminating findings against Trump, nor has the Department of Justice confirmed the report's characterisation.
Public records show continuing disputes over what Epstein-related evidence should be released. Federal judges have repeatedly weighed competing interests between transparency and victim privacy, ordering partial disclosures while maintaining extensive redactions.
The Justice Department has also stated that significant portions of the remaining Epstein evidence involve sensitive child-abuse material or investigative data that cannot be safely disclosed without risking identification of victims.
The political dimension intensified after Trump publicly suggested he would consider clemency for Maxwell, while her attorney, David Oscar Markus, told congressional investigators that she would be prepared to speak 'fully and honestly' if granted such relief. That statement, submitted to lawmakers, forms part of official congressional correspondence rather than media commentary.
Transparency Battles Continue Around Epstein Records
The dispute arrives amid an expanding legal push to unseal Epstein-related material nationwide. Federal judges have recently authorised the release of large volumes of records tied to both Epstein and Maxwell, citing public interest while emphasising the need to protect victims' identities.
Even so, courts have rejected some government requests to unseal additional grand jury material, ruling that much of the evidence was already presented publicly or lacked historical significance sufficient to override secrecy rules.
The temporary disappearance of a catalogue entry, regardless of intent, underscores the fragmentation of the Epstein archive. Documents exist across criminal dockets, civil litigation, and agency databases, creating gaps that fuel speculation whenever records appear altered, delayed, or partially released.
For now, the restored document has raised more questions than answers, leaving unresolved whether the episode reflects routine administrative handling, an error in database management, or something far more consequential — and ensuring that the long struggle over the Epstein files continues to reverberate through American politics and the federal justice system.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
© Copyright IBTimes 2025. All rights reserved.
